User talk:Nwwaew/Archive 1

My Userpage | My Talk Page (archives: 1|2|3|4|5) | Sandbox
Current Archive:
Archive 5

Past Archives:
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
This is the first archive for my talk page. All messages that currently do not require my attention are moved here by me when the issue is resolved.

If you want to bring up a message from the past, please create a new section with the message copied from the archive. Thanks!

Welcome[edit]

I saw you still had no welcome, so here it is... :)

Welcome!

Hello, Nwwaew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Also, I saw you were helping out on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Thanks for that, we need help on that. But you don't have to comment on every suspected violation. Just remove it from the list if you tagged it as a copyvio or remove it if it's not a copyvio. Saves some time. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Suggestion[edit]

Hello. Thanks for the suggestion!

Just out of curiosity, though, why do you think that feature wouuld be beneficial? -- Where 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning[edit]

This is regarding your ban warning on my user page. I had simply reverted some vandalism on the page Spitting. Here is the content that I removed:

"Spitting was invented in the West in the year 681 BC when invading Vikings got their first taste of French wine. It seems the subtleties of the French palate were too sophisticated for the Norsemen, who emphatically spat the wine in the faces of its dismayed creators, exclaiming "THIS IS THE WORST BEER WE'VE EVER TASTED!!"

It is very funny, I agree. But it would be more at home at Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia, don't you think?

210.18.78.2 12:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo!

210.18.78.2 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

208.108.145.4 autoblock[edit]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 208.108.145.4 lifted.

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: accusing me of vandalism[edit]

on the urinary bladder page the only thing i did was add a link to urodynamics. i note from the history that some character unknown had some really childish things to say which you rightly took out; but it certainly was not me. how did it come about that you thought it was me? Warbeck 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can you please be more specific? I checked and I warned an IP address over that (I checked it before typing this), but I never did suggest that you did anything. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: accusing me of vandalism part two[edit]

I am afraid I can't reproduce the warning, but when I logged in last night at home (currently at work) there was a new message from yourself with the vandalism stuff and warning about me getting removed from Wikipedia. Where do the old messages go to ? I accept your insistence that it was some IP # that you were aggrieved with Warbeck 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in your page history- see here. If you have certain internet providers, your IP changes regularly, so you may have gotten an IP that had previously vandalized Wikipedia. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 16th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: adminship[edit]

Yes, I've decided to run. That's the second offer I got in two days, looks like people are dying for me to become an admin. MER-C 09:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Children in Therapy[edit]

I really appreciate that you've decided to help us out. We've been unable to agree on two specific points that I'll make clear on the talk page. The people involved that are not listed on the mediation request page are:

Thanks again. shotwell 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge several related disputes Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, & Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy[edit]

I would like to see the disputes on these pages all managed as one large dispute. How can we arrange that? Shotwell is a participant in the dispute on ACT and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Sarner is the problem on Bowlby and Candace Newmaker. Shotwell and Sarner work closely together as a review of their talk pages shows and their comments on the talk pages of the articles in question. DPeterson^talk 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, StokerAce appears to be a party related to Sarner or Shotwell...nor edit history, except for these disputed pages on these issues. DPeterson^talk 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how we can manage all this as one larger issue...it would be most economical and we really cannot resolve anything about ACT without resolving the other issues. DPeterson^talk 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight:

I am interested in the ACT article and concerned with the outcome of this mediation, but I have no desire to be a party to it, directly and indirectly. I have faith that, as long as there are people involved with the mediation who truly understand, and are committed to enforce, Wikipedia policy, then all will turn out without my activation.

I wouldn't want the dispute resolution on ACT to be held hostage to the disputes about the other articles. Besides, the present mediator didn't sign up for all that.

Shotwell and myself do not "work closely together" or even at all, though he once did make useful comments on Talk:Candace_Newmaker and just recently he sent me some useful tips about how to be a more effective editor in the face of the obstreperousness of DPeterson, et al.

Mr Shotwell has not been struggling with the ACT article on my behalf, or ACT's. I suspect that s/he has been doing so strictly for concern with Wikipedia.

However, "Dave Peterson", "Ron Johnson", "Sam Davidson", "RD Jones", and "Ralph Lender" do work very closely together, as you will discover in time. There are others, too, who might pop up as your mediation progresses.

I have no idea who StokerAce is, and have no known relationship with him or her, in or outside of Wikipedia.

I am currently engaged in serious editing activities on the Candace Newmaker and John Bowlby articles. These are currently in the discussion stage of dispute resolution from my point of view. If Peterson desired to open those to mediation, he should have gone through the formal request process.

Good luck to the present mediator. Larry Sarner 00:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging all the related cases is a wonderful ideaRalphLender^talk 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of LTTE article[edit]

I dont know if it a freak accident but I just requsted mediation of the LTTE article a few minutes back Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It seems you've just taken up a previous request for mediation of that article. Since the user who requested mediation and some others mentioned no longer contribute to WP, could you take on the new request instead? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can do it. Can you please give me a link to the case? Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I already gave it. Look up :-) Anyway here's it is again.Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Hopefully we can resolve the dispute. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your Help with User:Shotwell and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy[edit]

User:Shotwell has a dispute with the material in the article on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (just like the dispute User:Sarner had in the past and has). He has put in a request for user comment on the dispute, which is just fine an in accord with Wikipedia dispute resolution proecures. However, he now has edited the page in a provocative manner. His view that there is no verifiable source for the statement that this is an evidence based treatment is disputed by several other editors (there are several professional publications in peer-reviewed journals and books and empirical studies supporting the statement cited in the article and on the talk page. I would appreciate your intervention here. DPeterson^talk 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me.

The specific sections of the talk page where you can find these problems are listed below. He appears to want a citation for nearly every sentance (first link)...despite the fact that the cited peer-reviewed publications provide all the required verification. He then will not compromise and is the only one wishing to keep the verify tag on the page despite other editors feeling it can be removed. You will see in the edit history that he has reverted it back a couple of times.

DPeterson^talk 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy[edit]

On my talk page, you asked what my problems with the DDP are. Here is what I wrote there:

The problem with the article is that it makes broad claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis in a manner that would suggest they are encyclopedic fact. I don't feel wikipedia should make such claims unless a very strong majority of psychologists would agree with them. We're not here to recommend one form of treatment over another and such a precedent could ultimately be dangerous. Although DDP is relatively harmless according to the APSAC, other forms of therapy may not be. Are we to claim other forms of therapy are effective because a very small number of papers have concluded this? Moreover, DDP is relatively unknown and under-studied. The editors of Child Maltreatment recently wrote:

"In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although

the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising."

They go on to point out the deficiencies in the studies being used to reference the claims made in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. This is a highly credible source that is directly contradicting what Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy claims. Note that there is an incredibly vast difference between asserting "This is an evidence-based, effective therapy" and "Some studies have concluded that this therapy is effective." The editors that disagree with me seem to believe that any claim which finds its way into a book or peer-reviewed journal can be taken as scientific canon. Anyone involved with the academic hamster-wheel of publishing would immediately recognize the error in such reasoning.

DDP is intended to treat Reactive attachment disorder. This is a very serious and rare psychological disorder. In my mind, labelling DDP as "effective" and "evidence-based" is no different than labelling some experimental cancer treatment as effective and evidence based. Furthermore, the same Child Maltreatment article said:

"Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning,

coercive, abusive attachment therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We

hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge."

They aren't saying that the therapy is abusive, but they are not endorsing the therapy as being non-abusive either. As such, we cannot claim that this therapy satisfies APSAC guidelines because the very authors of those guidelines are not completely sure of the fact!

The proponents of DDP have come to conclusions that are in the scientific minority. I am not advocating against these conclusions and I believe that they belong in the article. My problem is that the conclusions are minority opinions and do not deserve to be treated as encyclopedic fact or scientific canon.

The reply to letters I am quoting can be found at http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. It is important to reiterate that this is likely the most credible source available to us regarding DDP. The authors are not, as DPeterson pointed out, disparaging DDP. They are, however, pointing out that a lot of research and investigation needs to be performed before it can be labelled as effective or evidence based.

The DDP article boils down to an endorsement of DDP and I'm not really sure we should we endorse any therapy whatsoever. We're here to present facts. Imagine if this article was about Ritalin. Ritalin is probably an effective treatment for ADHD and I suspect there is a vast library of research concluding the fact. Shall we go about endorsing Ritalin? Note the difference between the following claims:

"Ritalin is an evidence-based and effective treatment for ADHD."

"Ritalin is primarily used for the treatment of ADHD. A large amount of research has concluded that..."

I would also like to point out the large number of psychotherapy related articles that link to DDP or claim it is evidence-based. Even the Child abuse article makes this claim. Every one of these mentions was added by one of the editors involved in this dispute. This is suggestive of a large advertising campaign for DDP. It may seem bizarre that someone would advertise a therapeutic technique, but note that this therapy is practiced at a very limited number of treatment centers (maybe one) and its proponents stand to profit from a favourable impression of DDP.

Note that I have no interest in psychology and have never studied it before. I only stumbled across these articles because of the dispute at Advocates for Children in Therapy (which I was brought to by random page!). The "snake-oil claims" made in the DDP article led me to further research on the topic. I encourage anyone interested to follow the references and see for themselves. The matter at hand is quite clear to me and I suspect that it'd be clear to any reasonable person who investigated further.

This is an issue of encyclopedic and scientific integrity. I am not likely to change my opinions on these matters unless I am presented with a very solid and rational argument as to why I am wrong. shotwell 16:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the letter at Child Maltreatment was only written because Dr. Becker-Weidman, a proponent of DDP, wrote a letter to the journal. I feel it is important to put their letter in this context. DDP has received little or no professional attention aside from their response. shotwell 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Shotwell may be misrepresenting the article and the author's opinions. As I previously brought to his attention, the authors of the APSAC Task Force article stated, The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, '"In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006).'

There are several peer-reviewed publications supporting the efficacy of this model, some published after the APSAC report. All forms of treatment have some degree of uncertainty...for example, if you read the articles on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Psychoanalysis you will find differing opinions. If Shotwell has citations for research in peer-reviewed professional publications to present a different view (as presented in the Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy or Psychoanalysis articles, then he should put that data into the article). However, if Shotwell just doesn't like the article, in the same way that User:Sarner has a long history of disputing this article, among others, then that is not helpful or relevant to editing this article. Do we claim a "large advertising" campaign for Psychoanalysis because it is mentioned in many other articles? No, his statements are really a clear POV and are now becoming uncivil and unhelpful.

Finally, his manner is increasingly becoming very similiar to Sarner's uncivil manner. Using terms like "snake-oil" without verifiable and reliable sources is not helpful in building consensus. There currently is a consensus on the article's talk page to remove the verify tag because the article has been found to have good verifiable sources and references. DPeterson^talk 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking scattered quotes from the letter and pasting them together as if they were part of the same statement. The vast majority of the letter is an explanation of why DDP should not be labelled as evidence-based. The letter even calls on Becker-Weidman to remove such claims from his website! If the editors of Child Maltreatment don't believe the claims belong on his website, then the claims certainly do not belong here on wikipedia.

Did you expect that I wouldn't read the article? Do you expect that nobody else will read the article? I don't understand the logical basis of your actions here. shotwell 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with the other editors, but please do quote accurately. No where does the letter ask for the revmoval of the statements regarding evidence base from his website site. The letter is not primarily about why the treatment "is not evidence-based." As others have pointed out, you are misquoting and misrepresenting the material. The facts are the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy has several peer-reviewed publications to support it and the Wikipedia article is an accurate representation regrding the current state of knowledge regarding this approach. JohnsonRon 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging the issues on this page with the material regarding Sarner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18_Sarner%27s_reverts-edits_of_Bowlby_and_Candace_Newmaker as these three areas do seem to have a lot of overlap and both Sarner and Shotwell seem to be presenting the same arguments in all locations. JohnsonRon 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shotwell's actions on the Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles[edit]

He has now moved his actions to these pages from the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. It certainly looks like he is working with User:Sarner, who has a vested interest in this matter (he is a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy and his book is on that page and the Candace Newmaker article). Your intervention in all these disputes would be most helpful as they are all clearly part of one bigger dispute of Sarner and Shotwell. If you notice, on the Bowlby article talk page and the others, Sarner has been raising the same issues from time to time and was blocked for a period fo time from the Bowlby article.

Can you suggest some way to intervene here and get this to stop? Would it be appropriate now to turn this over to Arbitration or to some other group for reveiw and intervention? DPeterson^talk 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working with Sarner? Please refrain from the allegations you're choosing to make unless you're willing to make them officially. shotwell 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is that you and he have take identical stances, are using the same tactics, and same language. DPeterson^talk 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion[edit]

Based on your comment on my talk page, I think there is some confusion here. I am the one being accused of "working with Sarner" by DPeterson and others. shotwell 22:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to Nwwaew. I was making an observation about you (Shotwell) and Sarner. I am sorry if my observation was confusing. I've only found Nwwaew's input helpful. I would like to see more of it. DPeterson^talk 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:shotwell abusing Wikipedia and retaliation[edit]

User Shotwell appears to be retaliating because the question of his relationship with Sarner was raised. He has labeled every participant in the dispute as a sockpuppet and put tags on their pages. I see this as an abuse of Wikipedia policy and procedures. I think you really need to strongly intervene here or move this on to arbitration. His actions are not compatible with Wikipedia practices. DPeterson^talk 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 23rd.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet issues[edit]

with all due respect, i don't think you have been very neutral in the ACT dispute. you opened a sockpuppet page with regard to Sarner and me based on no evidence at all (the all caps statement was just silly, as i did not create those headings; and Sarner and I have disagreed on issues). but then you object to shotwell's request in which he gathers a ton of evidence in support. it appears that you have taken sides on the issue, which is not appropriate for a mediator. just my 2 cents. StokerAce 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, now that your sockpuppet request has been rejected, please take the sockpuppet notice of my talk page. thanks. StokerAce 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response from you regarding taking down the sockpuppet notice on my page. I'd do it myself but I don't want to be accused of vandalism. StokerAce 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I see you've done a checkuser request. i'm not sure they'll do it without any evidence. but even if they do, it will demonstrate that there is no sockpuppetry. so, i'll wait for the result, but I then expect you to take the sockpuppet tag off my page. StokerAce 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Naple issue[edit]

I will look into the issues and get back to you as soon as possible.....--Netquantum 12:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the mediation comments_ everything is Okay now, anyway we agreed on a solution and SandyDancer did change the details we disscussed and the article seems more or less Okay now.--Netquantum 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--Couter-revolutionary 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certain users, User:SandyDancer etc. are once again using the term "titular Prince of Naples", this is used for no other Royals in his position, as he did hold the Title under law, at a time. He is the titular King and cannot be a titular Prince too. They have also gone to the ridiculous length of describing his children as Titular too! I can accept this article if these changes are reverted. --Couter-revolutionary 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ridiculous to claim someone holds an actual, existing title when at law that title was abolished in 1946? He may be styled that way out of courtesy but it is incorrect to say he really is "Prince of Naples" as that the title no longer exists. The correct positon is that he WAS Prince of Naples (up to 1946) and is sometimes styled that way by die-hard monarchists today - but that's it. --SandyDancer 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, stop claiming what monarchists refer to the Prince of Naples as when you do not know. They call him King. --Couter-revolutionary 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not incorrect, and your continued avoidance of the actual facts leads me to believe you know full well you can't establish I am.
You have a point of view here - we discussed it on your talk page at length [1]. You believe royal titles that, under some vague formula you admitted you can't pin down, are in your eyes "legitimate" endure even when abolished under the relevant legal system. That is your point of view. It is also the point of view of a small but significant minority of others. It is not, however, undisputed fact, and in this case runs counter to the reality that all royal and noble titles (e.g. Prince of Naples) were abolished under the Italian consitution in 1946.
You may not accept the Italian consitution as valid and binding, but the overwhelming majority of people do, including Vittorio Emanuele himself! It may be convention in royalist circles to still use these titles, but it isn't for the rest of us. --SandyDancer 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - you said "He is the titular King and cannot be a titular Prince too". Why? There is no logic to that statement whatsoever. --SandyDancer 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Couter-revolutionary just attempted to edit my comment above - see here for his edit [2], which I see as a display of bad faith. I have reverted the change. --SandyDancer 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my own talk page, which you decided I am not allowed to do and threatened to publically post it on VE's talk page. As a consequence I accepted your revert of my own talk page but qualified this acceptence with a deletion of unnecessary links to my page.--Couter-revolutionary 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You edited one of my comments - it doesn't matter which page it was on, you are not supposed to edit someone's comments in order to change what they said. You hoped I wouldn't notice but I did. Stop trying to obscure the issue to cover up what you have been up to. Just don't do it again. "Your" talk page does not belong to you, and it is not supposed to be private. --SandyDancer 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ref. Moderation case Deletions by user Kdbuffalo[edit]

User The Hokkaido Crow has contacted me, expressing an interest in this. He was involved in a long-running edit-war with Kdbuffalo on Bible scientific foreknowledge (again, reverting Kdbuffalo's repeated deletion of criticism). Also, user Andrew_c performed two of the repairs to Peter Stoner, reported Kdbuffalo for 3RR violation on this, and has issued complaints about his antics in the past: he is also likely to be interested. --Robert Stevens 12:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to participate (I have never been involved in mediation before). I have posted a small summary of my interactions with KD, and a number of examples of slow edit warring and POV deletions. This issue is hard for me, because Kdbuffalo can be a productive contributor, and I think it is important to represent his POV, however I do have strong issues against a number of editing tactics of this user. Please see my comment on the mediation page for more.--Andrew c 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser decline[edit]

your checkuser request was declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner

can you take off the sockpuppet tag now? StokerAce 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As bad, or worse, the case was found to be serious vandalism and it was requested that diff's be listed. I think this is much worse than a mere case of sockpuppetry. JohnsonRon 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this off. There was no finding of vandalism, rather a statement that for a checkuser request under C, there needs to be evidence of vandalism. But there was none, so that's the end of it. StokerAce 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are reading this correctly. JohnsonRon 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't mediators supposed to be neutral?[edit]

I now see that you asked JohnsonRon what "we" should do about the alleged "StokerAce vandalism" (of which there is none, of course). As a mediator, you are supposed to be neutral here, yet you seem to see yourself as being on the side of AWeidmen et al. Can you explain this to me? StokerAce 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE StokerAce Vandlaism[edit]

I'd suggest pursuing the blocking for vandalism. He is being obstructive and blocking from the pages in question Candace Newmaker, Bowlby, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy may be indicated. He cerainly functions like Sarner (even his wording above is just like Sarner...making unfounded accusations, etc.). He is not complying with Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, if disrespectful, uncivil, and makes repeated personal attacks. It is quite possible that StokerAce may be his wife Linda Rosa since both accounts are located in Denver and StokerAce began editing at the time Sarner stopped for a while (was blocked from Bowlby) and only edits those few pages. Maybe, arbitration is in order? I'm not sure of what would be proper process at this point.JohnsonRon 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this issue has been around for a very long time. Sarner made this a battle a while ago and was appropriately blocked. Now StokerAce does not seem willing to accept that his view, like Sarner, is a minority view and that a variety of editors disagree with him. Arbitration may be the only way to finally end this lingering contentious dispute with this minority of two. DPeterson^talk 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 30th.[edit]


Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE[edit]

Hi , we havent seen you in the mediation page for some time Dutugemunu 08:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Cases[edit]

It has been proposed to merge Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy which you are mediating. If you are okay with that I will go ahead and close the other case. --Ideogram 09:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be good. I have another question, related to this...see below:SamDavidson 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one[edit]

The dispute on each of these articles (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Bowlby) are rehashes of issues raised by User:Sarner and ACT, that appear to have been resolved. How much time and effort are we supposed to devote to a rehash and, as is the case on each of these pages, how much time and effort should be expended when there is only one editor, with a rather extreme, or at least biased, set of views and there are a large number of other editors who clearly disagree and have provided ample basis for their positions? If you have a moment and can respond to my talk page, I'd appreciate it. SamDavidson 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in the Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles resolved(?)[edit]

In reading the mediation page it appears that Shotwell is satisfied with how things are on those pages and there are no pending disputes. So, can you do something to note that the issues raised for mediation on those two pages have been resolved? This would be a help, especially if the issues are raised again by Sarner. Thanks. SamDavidson 18:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is wonderful. I've put a note on the respective article talk pages. JohnsonRon 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 6th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocates for Children in Therapy[edit]

I've decided to leave this dispute alone because it was taking up too much of my time. Since I was the only person raising a fuss, it is probably safe to close the case if everyone else agrees. shotwell 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. So, can you close the case as "resolved" with the outcome being the articles (Bowlby, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Candace Newmaker, stay as written. This way we won't have to dispute the idential issue again if one of the disputants decides to resurrect the issues. DPeterson^talk 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the dispute has ended with agreement that the four articles remain as they are, it would be fine with me to close the case. The four pages are: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Candace Newmaker JonesRD_talk 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me if this means the pages are ok and I don't have to argue these same issues for a third time. RalphLender^talk 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CENSORSHIP[edit]

What they don't want you to know:

Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers^[1]^[2]^[3], a singularly authored paper^[4], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary^[5] to a paper by M.A. Stull^[6].

^ Ross, Hugh N., and E. R. Seaquist. "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 170 (January 1975): pp. 115-119. NASA ADS
^ Lo, K. Y., R. T. Schilizzi, M. H. Cohen, and H. N. Ross. "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." The Astrophysical Journal 202 (1 December 1975): pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS
^ Lo, K. Y., M. H. Cohen, R. T. Schilizzi, and H. N. Ross. "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." The Astrophysical Journal 218 (15 December 1977): pp. 668-670. NASA ADS
^ Ross, Hugh N. "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." The Astrophysical Journal 200 (15 September 1975): pp. 790-802. NASA ADS
^ Ross, Hugh N. "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature 226 (2 May 1970): p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed
^ Stull, M.A., 1970, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed

Come fly with us[edit]

Stop Hand

THE WIKIPEDA IRC SPAM PROJECT IS RECRUITING NOW

WHY ME
Your recent request to use VandalProof software has been refused as you have too few edits to the English Wikipedia.
We need editors to look through recently edited pages and decide whether the links are spam or not.
If the link qualifies as spam, you will need to revert the page to remove the link and warn the 'spammer'.
This will increase your edit count and allow the VandalProof team to approve you in future !
In fact, the Wikipedia IRC Spam Project shares many VandalProof administrators and users.
HOW TO JOIN

1. Install an IRC client.
(ChatZilla, IceChat and X-Chat are free. X-Chat works on all platforms) - a full list is available here.
2. Visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam
This channel lists, in real time, all external links added to Wikipedia.
Around 50% of the links listed are suspicious and need to be checked.
We flag especially suspicious links in RED.
3. Begin Checking Links
Click on any diff (the Wikipedia URL) listed in the IRC channel to begin checking and reverting as necessary.
If you revert, remember to place a spam warning {{subst:spam1}} → {{subst:spam4}}
We need to be able to block persistent spammers just as we do persistent vandals.
Remember - If you need help or admin intervention visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t

POLICY Before you begin, please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. These polices are the basis of spam fighting.

Best Wishes - The Wikipedia IRC Spam Project Team

—— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 13th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Pauly Shore Is Dead; Cypress Falls High School; Guillaume de Lorris; Perry Nuclear Generating Station; Hari Rud; Beavercreek, Oregon; WATJ; American Electric Power; Turkey Creek Middle School; COGEMA La Hague site; First light; Catawba Nuclear Generating Station; Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Makar; Petrochemistry; Philippic; Obninsk; Iguana; Ashland High School (Ohio)

Cleanup: Maple Place School; Jozef Maximilián Petzval; Central Ohio Lions
Merge: Tracheid; History of technology; Jeffrey (name)
Add Sources: Wayne Bertsch; Plough; Digestion
Wikify: National Nuclear Data Center; Aberration in optical systems; Kate DiCamillo
Expand: Education in Africa; List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan; Federated identity

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism spammer[edit]

I'm monitoring the user. The user has been blocked before so an indefinite block is likely. Gdo01 13:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Wikipedia Users[edit]

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about Wikipedia users and all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. As such, I would like to speak to you about your experience with the Counter Vandalism Unit. I noticed several users are referencing you in regards to your comments on vandalism in particular. If you are interested in participating, please email me at brianwrites@gmail.com.

Thanks FFFearlesss 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 20th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I have the vandals on my radar and when on recent change patrol, I almost always catch the repeat offenders! I will keep my eye out. Keep up the great wikipediaing. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IDK, mabye[edit]

It would have to be some bot making some change in a random userbox, like changing a color to red. It would be a good way to keep vandals out of the know though. In all actualillaty (SPELLING ERROR--DONT SHOOT ME) I was referring to the album by Bloc Party. TTYL, → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 8:05 am ET Nov 22, 2006

Your edit to Osmosis[edit]

Your recent edit to Osmosis (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason I got this message was because I reverted vandalism on Osmosis, but I accidently reverted to a vandalized version. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Osmosis[edit]

What level of protection did you put on Osmosis? Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it. Sorry, I was trying to add the sprotect tag to the top of the page, but Wikipedia was timing out for me for some reason. - Mark 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert Geni?[edit]

Why did you revert Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with this edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thought I'd missed something. Be careful with that thing! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ross, Hugh N., and E. R. Seaquist. "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 170 (January 1975): pp. 115-119. NASA ADS

[2] Lo, K. Y., R. T. Schilizzi, M. H. Cohen, and H. N. Ross. "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." The Astrophysical Journal 202 (1 December 1975): pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS

[3] Lo, K. Y., M. H. Cohen, R. T. Schilizzi, and H. N. Ross. "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." The Astrophysical Journal 218 (15 December 1977): pp. 668-670. NASA ADS

[4] Ross, Hugh N. "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." The Astrophysical Journal 200 (15 September 1975): pp. 790-802. NASA ADS

[5] Ross, Hugh N. "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature 226 (2 May 1970): p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed

[6] Stull, M.A., 1970, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]